Navigate:

Tech firms face netroots uprising

Protesters have taken to Facebook and Twitter to make their voices heard. | AP Photos

Tech companies are a bit nervous about the uprising. Facebook — one of the companies that joined the anti-SOPA movement — posted a defense of its support for the bill last week, just as the heat of the online pressure cooker was turned up.

Demand Progress, one of the main groups involved in the anti-SOPA fight, called on Internet users to focus on pressuring the social network to pull its support for the bill. “Internet users were able to push Go Daddy to withdraw its support of SOPA,” the group’s petition reads. “Now it’s time to make sure Facebook knows we’re furious.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Part of that effort encourages people to share an Internet meme of a picture of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg with the phrase scrawled across it: “Says he will protect the net […] has Facebook sign on in support of #CISPA.”

Facebook’s head of U.S. public policy Joel Kaplan defended the social network’s support of the bill in the blog post published last week, but he struck a more measured tone than the glowing letter of support it sent to the Intelligence Committee earlier this year. Kaplan attempted to dispel some the claims swirling on social media that the bill would encourage Facebook to hand over people’s personal data to the government. He said the measure would make it easier for the social network to protect its systems and, in turn, keep personal information safe from hackers.

Some companies say they fear that having the online activists turn against them may have a chilling effect on their legislative work. “It’s an online version of what happened in the summer of 2009, when town halls across the country … were derailed by protesters on the health care reform debate,” the tech company insider said. “All debate shut down and that was detrimental to the policy debate, ultimately.”

Some members of Congress obsess like teenagers over what’s being said about them in the social media. If it’s all negative — even if there’s not much of it and it’s not from constituents — they’ve shown a propensity to jump ship.

Look what happened to SOPA and PIPA. The bills enjoyed broad bipartisan support and were on cruise control to sail through Congress. But when Wikipedia and Reddit went dark for a day and Google blocked out its logo, co-sponsors of the bills quickly reversed their stance.

But whether it’s the Internet masses forcing the Susan G. Komen Foundation to change its mind about plans to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood or forcing ALEC to back off “stand your ground” laws in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Internet activists are unlikely to give up.

“There’s a shift in the mood in the country in that people see when they take that sort of action, something happens: Their behavior is validated,” said Deanna Zandt, a media technologist who was involved in the online protests against the Komen Foundation. “People are starting to learn behaviorally that their participation can influence the outcome. They see the potential in something that’s spreading through multiple networks of people.”

Readers' Comments (12)

why do online entities like facebook or twitter feel that they are above public scrutiny? why are their positions to be protected by the government at the expense of the rights of the public? when brick and mortar companies do things that are out of touch with the public they service, they are picketed. what is happening with facebook and twitter is the exact same thing. those companies have chosen to put up an online storefront. they have taken positions that are out of touch with their customers, so the customers are letting them know. simple business.

the more disturbing issue is the slant that this article and politico take, which is infused throughout the business model - which is to blindly support anything that insulates web based regimes from public feedback......politico does this regularly. pretty lame.

Mitt will put a stop to this nonsense by strongly policing the Internet!

Protests against policing the internet are led by socialists, terrorists, and molesters who want their dirty secrets hidden. These people want to overthrow our Moral Christian way of life with their own secular/socialist/molesting unbeliefs!

Mitt will root them out when he is elected, and make the Internet a moral place, well policed and safe for children!

The public and Internet wouldn't have to raise their voices and 'bully' big corporations and politicians as one person calls it in this article, if those big money corporations and other rich people didn't buy our politicians and pay them to vote for and pass bad legislation that you'd expect to only see in a dictatorship, or a country where it's always guilty till proven innocent (since that's what SOPA did, except corporations and individuals could declare you guilty to proven innocent, which is even worse and even more open to abuse).

CISPA would make it very easy for a dictatorship to spy on it's citizens and lock up trouble makers for the crime of merely opposing the government. Can you imagine how differently the news media would be reporting on CISPA if this was instead proposed in a place like China? A government that we all know violates the rights of it's citizens and already doesn't allow free speech.

Also, if you don't think the US government wouldn't abuse this power, look at all the abuse the government was later forced to admit to, or that the courts declared illegal/abuse and told the US government to stop.

-Warrantless wiretapping, including sticking GPS devices on cars without a warrant.

-Keeping hundreds of alleged terrorists, including some American citizens, in jail indefinitely for years without even charging them with a crime.

-Keeping some of those above prisoners in jail for additional months after admitting they probably weren't really guilty of anything (to the point that those prisoners had to sue to get released from jail, waiting in jail as their case moved up to the supreme court).

-Adding hundreds of thousands of US citizens to their terrorist watch list, including some US congressmen, and really common names like "Joe Smith". If you think the government won't use CISPA as an excuse to spy on all those people wrongly put on the watch list then you're lying to yourself.

-Throwing all Japanese Americans into internment camps during WW2, for the crime of being Japanese, and therefore likely to spy on America. And worse yet, the courts ruled this was constitutional and have never overturned the decision (undoing the decision because the US government was later found to have lied to the court to win it's case doesn't overturn the precedent it set).

But whether it’s the Internet masses forcing the Susan G. Komen Foundation to change its mind about plans to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood or forcing ALEC to back off “stand your ground” laws in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Internet activists are unlikely to give up.

“There’s a shift in the mood in the country in that people see when they take that sort of action, something happens: Their behavior is validated,”

Power to the People!

What this bill is trying to do is protect corporations from the influence of the People. We have lost OUR government to the lobbyist of "K" Street, now the corporate powers are trying to pretect themselves from the Power of the People!

Mitt will put a stop to this nonsense by strongly policing the Internet!

Protests against policing the internet are led by socialists, terrorists, and molesters who want their dirty secrets hidden. These people want to overthrow our Moral Christian way of life with their own secular/socialist/molesting unbeliefs!

Mitt will root them out when he is elected, and make the Internet a moral place, well policed and safe for children!

The only thing "new" about this article are the readers it is trying to reach, educate and warn.

Those of us who are mature enough to have actually been taught History in what used to be the halls of education and learning known as schools, before they became fashion palaces and social networking venues, understand that there are dangers to freedom that continue over time.

Dictatorial governments (and cleverly disguised oligarchies) cannot afford to give 'free' reign to the Press (which is why our true objective journalists have been replaced by dueling pundits and entertainment news), allow 'freedom' of speech and expression (which is why there is a Federal Communications Commission) nor can they afford too many people to gather in one place to exchange and disceminate information - which is why permits must be obtained and restrictions put in place to stall, disperse and otherwise STOP the organization of that very thing.

The internet is a way of 'gathering' HUGE numbers of people together to exchange information, opinions, and ideas....All one needs to do is look at (or experience) CHINA's control of the internet to see where OUR government is headed (or possibly already IS and just now letting us know).

Give up your right to a totally free (as in UNlegislated) internet and you give up the ability to say anything that's on your mind...I remember MY elders saying this about television (that wouldn't "allow" the word 'pregnant' or 'sex' to be spoken) and I thought they were just being "old farts"...good luck new generation, and go read some George Orwell.

You seem paranoid - Mitt will implement laws that protect innocent people on the internet from socialists, terrorists, and molesters. America is a Christian Nation and the internet should be safe for Christians, and not used by terrorists to coordinate attacks.

(Laughter........)

I'm not the one who is paraniod, my friend. I'm not the one limiting the "Freedom of Speech" not just in the US, but world-wide.

It would be helpful to you if you would broaden your views.

BTW, The United States is NOT a Christian nation. We are a secular nation. Your namesake agrees with me on the subject.

This article is about the cyberbullying of Facebook, the social network that has made BILLIONS off of people gossiping about each-other? Let me call the waa-ambulance for you.

The Internet by definition is anti-centralist: it is good for the People and not the powers-that-be. So yes, I expect the situation to get worse before it gets better. Arab Spring was the first spark of Enlightenment for the 21st century. We can't stop until there are Amendments to protect our freedom and privacy on the Internet.

The government and corporations are the bullies here. The only reason companies rejected SOPA because it made them responsible. Now more than ever, we need laws that will protect us from the demi-gods that forced upon us the Patriot Act, Citizens United, DHS and the TSA. These luddites think the Internet's a Wild West to be tamed. It is not -- it is the future of humanity and, with a little hope and freedom of expression, universal prosperity and they would rather cripple it than see it thrive.

Grassroots support isn't cyber bullying. It's democracy, and they damn well better get used to it.

As a white-hat hacker (which means I don't do anything illegal) I can almost guarantee that CISPA won't do anything to protect against attacks. Most black-hat hackers (the bad ones) already do their attacks through a VPN. This way, all of their traffic goes to the VPN before it actually goes to the destination (the 'target' or 'victim'). If that VPN is located outside of the US (and no, you can't just censor them, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have a VPN), then there is really nothing that can be done to catch the hacker. Monitoring and sharing network traffic will show that a lot of traffic is going to the VPN server, and not much else. "Enhancing the flow of information between industry and government" won't do anything. You can deal with cyber attacks all you want, but hackers will get around it if they want to. That's kind of their job by definition, actually.

For the rest of us, it means goodbye to our privacy rights just because a few bad apples spoiled the bunch. The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason, this bill violates that amendment by allowing sharing of potentially sensitive information without a warrant (Warrants are a great alternative to harsh legislation like this. They get you the same information that this bill would. Plus, they already exist and are in widespread use today, and aren't very controversial!) I will not stand by and watch in despair as my right to privacy is taken away.